Shortly after his illegal entry, the Somali Abdi Mohamed M. (23) raped a 16-year-old girl and attacked a 21-year-old. The next day he was jailed.

He is still in prison today. Among other things, he was sentenced to six years for the rape. Remorse? Empathy? Not a trace! He repeatedly attracted attention in the Diez prison, even behind bars.

Insult, exhibitionist acts in front of female staff, sexual assault. Again and again he was given additional detention.

The record of Abdi Mohamed M.

Born May 1st 1997 in Mogadishu, Somalia

February 22, 2014: First entry into the country

February 25, 2014: Reception centre Trier

March 03, 2014: Rape of a 16-year-old girl, assault on a woman (21)

March 04, 2014: Start of pre-trial detention

October 1st, 2014: verdict by Trier District Court for rape and other offences – 6-year juvenile sentence

March 1, 2020: end of imprisonment actually foreseen

May 2nd, 2016: verdict of the court of Diez for insult – 6 months imprisonment

September 1, 2020: end of imprisonment actually foreseen

January 15, 2020: Judgement of the court of Diez because of exhibitionistic acts – 6 months imprisonment

(not yet final)

May 14, 2020: Criminal charges for sexual assault (file no. 2070Js31516/20). Judgement of the court in Diez on February 15: 18 months.

Actually, he was supposed to be deported. But his home country does not want him ( the newspaper BILD reported). Somalia does not issue the necessary travel documents.

Now it is at least clear that he will not be released any time soon. Because of the latest exhibitionist offences in prison, he was given a further 18 months in prison. According to the weekly “Wochenspiegel”, the judge attested him a “high rate of recidivism”.

https://m.bild.de/regional/frankfurt/frankfurt-aktuell/cochem-exhibitionismus-18-weitere-monate-knast-fuer-vergewaltiger-75653204,view=amp.bildMobile.html

Berlin is the first German state to introduce an “Expert Commission on Anti-Muslim Racism”. According to a press release of the federal state, the “independent committee” is to deal intensively with “anti-Muslim racism”. Until spring 2022, the commission is to critically accompany administrative actions and develop concrete recommendations for the further development of prevention work on anti-Muslim racism.

The commission is chaired by Eren Ünsal, head of the anti-discrimination department of the Senate Department for Justice, Consumer Protection and Anti-discrimination. Other members include two delegates from the Islam Forum, Lydia Nofal and Mohammed Hajjaj, as well as Prof. Zülfukar Çetin from the Protestant University in Berlin. The Senator for Justice, Consumer Protection and Anti-Discrimination, Dirk Behrendt ( Greens), said that anti-Muslim racism is a problem that needs to be looked at more closely.After the “racist attack” in Hanau, the question was raised whether enough was really being done against this form of racism. “That is why we want to put the actions of politics and administration to the test with an expert commission,” said the politician.The lawyer and co-founder of the liberal Ibn Rushd Goethe Mosque in Berlin, Seyran Ateş, told the Protestant news agency IDEA when asked that the membership of the commission did not show plurality. In principle, she said, she welcomes expert commissions as long as they produce a result and “make a real contribution to improving a situation for society as a whole”. However, she assumes that in 20 to 30 years the effects of this “identity policy movement” will be judged in the same way as all other so-called “integration policies”, namely as “misguided and subverted”.

She would very much welcome, said the lawyer, if the membership were more pluralistic and the commission had a different name. The term “anti-Muslim racism” suggests that there is such a thing as a race called ” Muslim/Muslima”, but this should be rejected.
Moreover, “anti-Muslim racism” is often compared to anti-Semitism: “Islamophobia and Muslimophobia and the broad dimension of this hostility are not only brought close to the Holocaust, but claimed to be identical.” This form of trivialisation of the Holocaust must be countered with “all forces”.

https://www.idea.de/spektrum/berlin-fuehrt-expertinnenkommission-antimuslimischer-rassismus-ein

The Dutch social scientist Ruud Koopmans has made fun of German reactions to the Swiss referendum on the ban on full-face veils. In a tweet, Koopmans, who researches integration at Humboldt University and the WZB in Berlin and became known for a major study on religious fundamentalism, wrote: “Help, Germany is surrounded by Nazis.”

It ironically draws attention to the fact that Germany’s migration and integration policy is not only characterised by a particular negligence towards Islamic fundamentalism. Even in Muslim-majority Morocco, a ban on the sale of burqas was reported in 2017. In Germany, however, this political negligence is also backed up by a snobbishly moralising public opinion that tends to school other countries. “Once again, the world must be healed by the German spirit,” Koopmans writes. With his tweet, he is reacting to a tweet by former Zeit editor and Taz columnist Mohamed Amjahid, who claims that Switzerland has “democratically stumbled over the far-right fringe”.

https://www.tichyseinblick.de/daili-es-sentials/koopmans-burkaverbot/

Aydan Özoğuz Member of the German Bundestag, former Federal Commissioner for Migration, Refugees and Integration and current member of the Committee for Human Rights and Humanitarian Aid in the German Bundestag, is an enigmatic personality within an integration-hostile family. As early as 2016, she warned against a general ban on child marriages, because this could push sexually abused girls completely into the social exclusion.

A weak argument that sets abuse and financial dependencies against each other. And on other issues, too, she repeatedly let it be known that she wanted to protect rather than condemn orthodox (radical) Islam.This was also the case with the burqa ban. One never heard anything really pro-Israel or warnings against Islamic Islamism from her. This probably has to do with her family, as her brother Dr. Yavuz Özoguz runs the website Muslim-Markt that is full of misogyny, anti-Semitism and contempt for Christianity.

For more than three years now, the front page of Muslim-Markt has featured a link to an article by Ms Özoğuz’s brother Yavuz comparing Israel to the Boer state, which was wiped out because of its apartheid. In addition, a pamphlet disguised as an appeal against anti-Semitism claims that anti-Zionism has nothing to do with hostility towards Jews. Below this, numerous anti-Israel and anti-Jewish articles are linked, such as: “The Eleventh Commandment: Israel may do anything”, “The Holocaust Industry” or “Apartheid and Ethnic Cleansing in Palestine”.

Since the day before yesterday, the linked headline “You want to start wearing hijab” has been used to advertise the veiling of young girls.

Dates are always given twice on this page. Today, for example, it says “Mo. 8.3.21 / 24. Radschab 1442.” This also clearly shows the will to distance oneself from Western society.

The member of the German Parliament has never distanced herself from her brother’s propaganda, neither at the time when she was Integration Commissioner nor later. This shows: Either she sees herself as a subordinate being in her family constellation who has to obey and not contradict. Or else – since she always presents herself as liberal and emancipated – she fully stands by the contents spread by her brother. The latter is more likely.

For the German government, Islam belongs to Germany. It should browse more often on the websites of educated Muslims. Then perhaps they would realise that this sweeping statement cannot be allowed to stand. On this website Muslim-Markt , articles are linked and distributed that call for anti-Zionism and thus indirectly for anti-Semitism. Christians who position themselves against Islam are discredited, the role of women in Islam is reduced to the servant of men. Is all this really supposed to be part of Germany, Ms Merkel?

https://philosophia-perennis.com/2021/03/08/integrationsstifterin-aydan-oezoguz-spd-und-die-radikalislamische-website-ihres-bruders/

There would have been a majority for a legal ban on full-face veils at schools and universities in the state. The Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and the Free Democratic Party (FDP) are calling for such a ban. The AfD has already submitted a corresponding bill. Large parts of the Social Democratic Party (SPD) are also against face veils at universities. The Greens, however, brought down the plans in the parliamentary coalition.They are against too many bans and want to uphold a liberal society, said parliamentary group leader Eka von Kalben.

The University of Kiel had sent a call for help to parliament. Katharina K., a German convert with contacts in the Salafist circles, showed up for a lecture in a nikab and was subsequently excluded from her studies. Now she wants to sue. In view of this situation, CDU Education Minister Karin Prien urgently appealed to parliament to create a legal basis for this. Otherwise, she said, such state intervention in a fundamental right – the wearer invokes freedom of religion – could not be sustained in the foreseeable future.

CDU Prime Minister Daniel Günther also immediately came out in favour. Politicians must ask themselves whether, similar to the rejection of anti-Semitism, they want to “define a social norm” that they will not tolerate the nikab and burqa as symbols of Salafism, lack of freedom and the oppression of women in schools and universities, Prien said in the state parliament on Wednesday.Her appeal fell on deaf ears. The Greens opposed a ban on veiling. There are also women who wear the nikab voluntarily, said Eka von Kalben. Politics does not have to make theological interpretations, argued her Green parliamentary colleague Lasse Petersdotter. Moreover, oppressed Muslim women in particular should not be excluded from education, and should rather be offered help at universities. And there was only one case of a female student in the country. He described the quick reaction of the Minister of Education and the Prime Minister to this as ill-considered and unsovereign. “Banning, pushing away, excluding and looking the other way does not solve problems,” Petersdotter said. “Our strategy against Salafism must be more meaningful than simple clothing bans.” A “ban on access to state educational institutions” also has no “deradicalising effect”.

SPD opposition leader Ralf Stegner did not want to accept this. He said that it was very much the task of politics to create a legal framework – and also to check whether a full-face veil was really a religious or not much more a political symbol.Even in the ranks of the CDU and FDP, their ministers and head of government Daniel Günther’s faces stiffened due to the unambiguous position of the Green parliamentary group. The CDU education politician Tobias Loose emphasised that there is a threat of further cases of full-face veils at schools in the state. There is already one concrete case. In Lower Saxony, the red-green government had issued a ban because of a case at the University of Osnabrück.

“We have to stand up for this and set limits,” emphasised Christopher Vogt, head of the FDP parliamentary group. University and school are places of enlightenment. Wearing a burqa or a nikab, on the other hand, is not an expression of cosmopolitanism, but above all a symbol of the oppression of women. “We want to make progress in gender equality, not regress,” said Vogt. Full-face veils would be where his liberality would end. The FDP therefore wants to let universities decide on a ban on full-face veils in the law.

In fact, the CDU/CSU and the Liberals are coming under considerable pressure from their members because of the dispute. There is talk of angry emails to the party leaders. The Greens were prepared to make only one compromise on Wednesday: there is to be a “major hearing” of experts on the issue in the state parliament.

AfD member of parliament Frank Brodehl sharply criticised the governing coalition for this ” wait-and-see” attitude. “CDU and FDP are abandoning the university. And that’s just to keep the coalition in good terms.” The hearing will not lead to any new insights, all the facts are available.In Bavaria, for example, a law like the one proposed by the AfD has long been in force. The hearing, according to the motto “If you don’t know any other way, form a research group”, should therefore only postpone a decision on the issue of face veils.”This may be in the interest of the survival of the coalition with the Greens, but it is definitely not in the interest of the universities in our country,” said Frank Brodehl. The teaching and examination business there, he said, does not tolerate any veiling of the students. And that is why the state parliament must also give them the possibility to ban it in a legally secure way.

https://www.ln-online.de/Nachrichten/Norddeutschland/Landtag-Gruene-blockieren-Schleier-Verbot-in-Schulen-und-Unis?fbclid=IwAR2_4Rl1WVbnvWAx7D3npygovi74DYbr3wdjpNEaZEFARToK3_QMwWVBdoA

The chairman of the Association of German Criminal Police Officers (BDK), Sebastian Fiedler, warns against attacks on women where the motive is an alleged violation of honour. “So-called honour killings are a phenomenon that has concerned us for many years,” Fiedler told the newspaper WELT AM SONNTAG. “Prevention and intervention are a major challenge in this milieu,” he said. The ” too exaggerated sense of honour” that can be seen in certain milieus “cannot be reconciled with our Basic Law”, he said.

On Thursday, the trial of Hashem N. started in Aschaffenburg (tweet above) – he allegedly killed his daughter because of her lifestyle and her relationship with a man. Three other similar trials are currently underway in Germany.

According to the Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA), about 300 women are killed in Germany every year – the figure for men is lower every year. New criminological research has introduced the term “femicide” for this. About one third of all murders that the Federal Criminal Police Office lists in its statistics under “intimate partner violence” are committed by men who do not have a German passport. Yet the proportion of foreigners in this country is only a good seven percent.

https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article227756919/Polizeigewerkschaft-Ehrenmorde-besorgen-uns-seit-Jahren.html

By Ethel C. Fenig

In a closely contested vote yesterday in officially neutral Switzerland, voters narrowly (51.21%) approved a bill stating, “no one shall cover their face in public” and “no one is permitted to force someone to cover their face based on their gender.” 

No, no, no — the neutral Swiss didn’t vote against face masks to keep the Wuhan virus from spreading; although not explicitly stated this law forbids Muslim women in Switzerland from covering their faces, with only eye peepholes or even slightly less restrictive face coverings, as is common in various degrees in most Muslim countries.  France, Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands and Denmark have similar so-called burka ban laws.

While reporters at Al Jazeera, the Muslim media conglomerate, whined discrimination about this law, labeling it anti Muslim, they are quite silent about similar laws which force women, citizens and tourists, alike to cover up in Muslim dominated countries.  For instance, in Iran, according to Trip Savvy: 

If you’re traveling specifically to Iran, you will want to consult the dress code information from the website Iranian Visa. The Islamic dress code for women takes effect when your airplane crosses into Iranian airspace, according to the site.

Islamic codes of behavior and dress are strictly enforced. In a public place, women must cover their heads with a headscarf, wear a long skirt or loose trousers, and a long-sleeved tunic or coat that reaches to the knee.

Diverse, pluralistic and multi-cultural countries such as the United States or Israel do not have such clothing restrictions aimed at any specific religious or ethnic group.

Officially neutral, Switzerland doesn’t approve of minarets on mosques, Muslim buildings of worship, either; so much so they passed a law forbidding them over 11 years ago.

However, once again, opposing laws and customs exist in Muslim dominated countries as harsher restrictions against (Christian) churches and much harsher restrictions, often to the point of totally forbidden, against (Jewish) synagogues are the norm there.

Once again, diverse, pluralistic and multi-cultural countries such as the United States or Israel have no such restrictions on any religious places of worship; indeed in the US religious buildings are tax exempt and therefore do not pay property taxes.

Ironically, very few Muslim women in Switzerland, either residents or tourists, cover their faces.  So, why are these laws being passed?  Eleven years ago, the British Guardian speculated

A handful of recent applications for building permits for minarets in Switzerland, the no campaigners said, was proof to many Swiss “of the next step in the strategy of Islamification of our country. The fear is great that the minarets will be followed by the calls to prayer of the muezzin … sharia is gaining in importance in Switzerland and in Europe. That means honour killings, forced marriages, circumcision, wearing the burka, ignoring school rules, and even stoning.”

The prohibition also found substantial support on the left and among secularists worried about the status of women in Islamic cultures. Prominent feminists attacked minarets as male power symbols, deplored the oppression of Muslim women, and urged a vote for the ban.

Since then, many more Muslims have immigrated to Europe; many of these issues — and more — happened and tensions over the newcomers and their failure to integrate remains high. 

So, ladies, follow the dress law wherever you go.  Men too.  Or else!

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/03/the_neutral_swiss_vote_yes_to_a_burqa_ban.html